( 1 ) THIS is a decree-holders appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, gonda.

( 2 ) THE decree for a sum of Rs. 1,600/- was passed against Brij Lal on the 28th August, 1948. Brij lal died and his heirs were substituted in his place. On the 26th September, 1948 the decree-holder applied for execution by attachment and sale of a house. On the 12th November 1948 the judgment-debtors filed an objection on the ground that the house was occupied by them as agriculturists and it was therefore exempted from attachment and sale under Section 60 (1) (c) c. P. C. The objection was finally dismissed by this Court on the 4th March 1958 and it was held that the house was not occupied by the judgment-debtors as agriculturists. On the 26th March 1958 the decree-holder made an application purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 66 (3) C. P. C. The judgment-debtors again filed an objection on the 30th April 1958 claiming exemption from sale of the house under Section 60 (1) (c) C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE trial court held that the objection was barred by the principle of res judicata and by limitation. In appeal the learned Civil Judge held that the objection was not barred by res judicata or limitation. The objection was accordingly allowed. This appeal is directed against that order.

( 4 ) THE contention on behalf of the decree-holder is that as a similar objection to attachment and sale was dismissed finally by this Court on the 4th March 1958 the second objection was barred by res judicata. Section 60, Sub-section (1) C. P. C. mentions the property liable to attachment and sale. The Sub-section (1) (c) says that

"houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him"

shall not be liable to attachment or sale. Whether the word or between attachment and sale is used as a disjunctive or not appears to be immaterial. Unless a decree is on the basis of hypothecation or charge the properly sought to be proceeded against in execution has to be attached otherwise attachment is not necessary and a decree-holder can ask directly for sale of the property hypothecated or charged. It is why under order 21, Rule 11 (2) (j) (ii) a decree-holder is required to specify whether the mode of execution is by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property. In the instant case the decree-holder applied for execution by attachment and sale. Evidently a property which is attachable is also saleable and a decision that a particular property is liable to attachment necessarily means that it is liable to sale, and so long as that decision stands it is not open to a judgment-debtor to object to sale as such an objection will be barred by the principle of res judicata. Of course, an objection to attachment may I be made at any time so long as a sale has not taken place. And if an objection to attachment has not been made then an objection to sale may be made up to the time the sale is confirmed. But it is not open to a judgment-debtor to object to an attachment and again to sale on the same ground. Reliance is placed upon Mt. Araz Bibi v. Mubarak Ali khan, AIR 1938 All 85. In that case the judgment-debtor claimed exemption from attachment and sale of a house under Section 60 (1) (c) C. P. C. on the ground that it was occupied by her as an agriculturist. Although she carried on cultivation the main source of her livelihood was the income from zamindar. Therefore the trial court and the first appellate court held that the house was not exempted from attachment and sale under Section 60 (1) (c ). When the matter came up for consideration in second appeal the source of income from the zamindari had disappeared, and this fact was taken into consideration in holding that the judgment-debtor was an agriculturist, entitled to the benefit of Section 60 (1) (c) C. P. C. In the course of t